iambiguous wrote:Okay, but like us what [the aliens] understand to be true in their brain/mind is one thing, demonstrating why all other brains/minds are obligated to believe it in turn another thing altogether.

Serendipper wrote:You're overcomplicating it. What's true for everyone is a subjective interpretation of everyone that just coincidentally happens to coincide. What applies to everyone or if everyone happens to perceive the same thing, the fact that everyone is implicated has no significance. The number of people who see it does not define objectivity; it's not a variable in the equation.

When science and philosophy finally pin down the precise relationship between mind and body, then we will know when something any of us might propose here is overcomplicated or oversimplified.

And, unitl then, an assessment such as this is just one more "general description"/"intellectual contraption" to me.

What on earth are you telling us here in regard to actual human interactions?

Actual human interactions are subject to the ways in which humans can interact. What's objective about a subjective situation?

What is the technology that we use to exchange these posts but an example of something -- physical relationships -- that is true for all of us? The laws of matter, mathematical proofs, phenomenal interactions.

Sure, in a No God world, "I" would appear to exist in an essentially meaningless universe that ends in oblivion. But, existentially, meaning abounds. At least in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

But we have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. You merely assert it to be so --- as though the assertion itself is all that is necessary.

Serendipper wrote:Sure, I assert it and if you're a subject adherent to logic then you will see it exists, and if you're not, then I'm asserting nonsense. Every assertion has conditions it is subject to.

That's my point too. Every assertion is embedded in a context. What can logic, a sound epistemology, and rational thought tell us about this context?

Nothing can be discerned about a context unless the context is objectified and put into yet another context.

I merely make that distinction between factual [and seeming objective] interactions in the either/or world and personal [and seeming subjective/subjunctive] judgments in the is/ought world.

That distinction is artificial.

Person A believes the earth is round.Person B believes the earth is round.

Person A likes coke.Person B likes pepsi.

All of that is subject to the person.

Take the claim, feed it to the person, crank the handle, out pops the answer. The answer will always be a function of how the person-machine was constructed. If all person-machines output the same answer, then it just means all person-machines are put together the same way. We still know nothing of objective reality (which is an oxymoron since no form of reality could be objective).

Serendipper wrote: The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn't make it less subjective.

What speaker in what set of circumstances regarding what sounds relating to what human interactions?

Serendipper wrote:Idk, why does that matter? The idea is the sound travels in all directions. No need to get technical and account for standing waves and cancellation. The point is sound is issued to everyone, but does not exist to everyone.

Again, it's not sound per se that intrigues me, but sounds that are heard by everyone/anyone in any particular context and reacted to in very different ways. Sounds that revolve around human speech for example. We can all listen in on Trump sounding off about the need for a wall on the Mexican border.

Is there a way that these sounds/words ought to be understood by all rational men and women?

No.

I try to guess how you will interpret my words and then I construct a message that I think will best serve to convey what is in my head to your head, but 100% fidelity is impossible and something is always lost in translation.

Trump says "We need a wall". Trumptards hear "Dear leader is protecting us from brown people." I hear "Trump is an idiot."

When the turdman was here, he certainly seemed to think so.

That's what objectivists do: pull claims from their ass and shove them down other's throats.

We think about the distinction between objective and subjective here in different ways. I need an actual context.

Serendipper wrote:Well, what is subjectivity a statement of? Observation, right? So what is objectivity except it also be a statement about observation, right? So what is doing the observation? It can't be the object because that would make the object just another subject, so there is something different about the object in this juxtaposition: there is no subject and there is no observer, so objectivity is a statement about what is observed without observers.

"Application to everyone" is not a statement about observation, unless it be the assertion that observation from all possible viewpoints would have the same view, which would require omnipresence and omniscience to verify.

"What everyone sees" is a statement about observation, but what everyone sees is just a collection of subjective interpretations that may or may not coincide, and if they do, it means nothing.

Actually, this is not at all what I meant by a context. This is just another intellectual contraption.

I am a classic INTJ who much like Nietzsche wouldn’t hesitate to destroy any sense of self I might have in order to survive a inevitable traumatic defeat or tragic end, I would and have become someone else in character.

It is part survival and part growth, and is a trial of clashing psychology with a inner sense of being, of saying I can’t be this personality thinking in this way anymore. But I still survive and carry on.

Woah! What? and how did it feel.. leaving your comfort zone of the classic INTJ? I recall you having a go at me for that, and now you go and do the same thing, tut tut.

I only smash constructs and the mind and associations attached to them.

Ergo, personal growth? Letting go of old ways, to let the new and much-needed ones surface? perhaps this phenomena happens to those that need it to happen.. for sanity's sake, and I don't think there is any other way, in such a situation of getting out of a traumatic state of being.

You may or may not see this.. if you don't, then you won't be able to read this.

Ahhh, the propolis.. it works.. but is quite potent, so it's a stopper and starter.. a drainer of energy while it works it's healing way through the system.. I can imagine that that takes an immense amount of energy to do.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite